ETHICAL VALUES AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IN NIGERIA: A CASE STUDY OF THE FOURTH REPUBLIC

CHAPTER ONE

1.1       INTRODUCTION

The history of Nigeria’s democratization began at independence with the adoption of democratic

institutions modeled on the British Westminster parliamentary system. Under this system, the prime minister who was the leader of the party with majority seats in the parliament was the substantive Head of government at the centre (federal) while the President was a mere ceremonial Head. From independence onwards, Nigeria has been grappling with the task of

entrenching the culture of democracy in governance through its provisions in the independence constitution of 1960; and the Republican constitution of 1963. These constitutions have prescribed the British-modeled Westminster parliamentary system for the country.

 

After independence, the new political elite had the duty of not only institutionalizing the democratic process but for developing a political culture, which would buttress the inherited institutions from the British colonial authority. There were therefore, high hopes at independence of Nigeria emerging as a fertile and large field for the growth of democracy and good governance in Africa. However, by the end of 1965, it became obvious that the future of democracy and good governance in the country had become bleak. In January, 1966, the military aborted the new democratic experiment in a bloody coup d’état. The military, subsequently, held on to power for almost 33 years after the 1966 coup except for some flashes of civil rule between 1979 and 1983; and 1987-1989. In 1979, Nigeria adopted the Presidential system of government modeled after the American system in preference to the British parliamentary system.

Nigerian’s short-lived democratic experiment after independence could be attributed to the following factors among others:

• Breakdown of the rules of the game of politics, which profusely polluted the political stadium and made politics as dangerous for players as well as spectators;

• Gross misuse of political power;

• Among public officers including impudent political and economic decisions in allocation of scarce but a locatable resources;

• Erosion of the rights of individuals;

• Disenfranchisement of the Nigerian populace through blatant rigging of elections;

• Conspicuous consumption of politicians amidst the abject poverty of the masses; and

• Excessively powerful regional governments, which threatened the relatively weak federal centre with wanton abandon (Elaigwu, 2011).

These challenges made it difficult for the first democratic government in Nigeria under the prime

ministership of Abubakar Tafawa Balewa to build a solid democratic culture and good governance. Indeed, for a country that was granted independence without a strong economic base as well as porous democratic culture it was expected that the military and the political elite

would have been more cautious because it was a period of learning the state of the art of democracy. This was the period when democratic institutions were expected to be established and democratic culture accepted and imbibed by the state actors and civil society at large. As

Mohammed (2008) cited in Yio (2011) observed, in this phase, success and goal attainment depend on how quick the leaders and the society learn to work on the basis of democratic principles and practices.

Unfortunately, in Nigeria, politics were not driven by nationalistic and class consciousness but by primordial sentiments of ethnicity, religion, regionalism, etc with the consequent deepening of poverty and under development in the country.

 

Democratic politics and good governance did not fare better in the Second Republic as well as the Third Republic. But since 29 May, 1999, when the Fourth Republic was ushered in, politicians in government have continued to use the phrase “dividends of democracy” which refer to the provisions of material welfare to the people, such as roads, rural electrification, potable water, improved educational and health facilities, housing, amongst others. However, It is pertinent to note that democracy and good governance in Nigeria and elsewhere in the world cannot be achieved through the mere provisions of material welfare such as roads, jobs, food, electricity, education, health care services and others since they are even easier to provide under

authoritarian rule. As Elaigwu (2011) observed:

In Britain, issues of economic distribution were handled before political rights. The success of the “Asian Tigers” lies in their utilization of authoritarian political structures for aggressive economic development. Democratization followed later. Democracy provides rights to groups and individuals. It presupposes the right or freedom of expression by the individual. When this is allowed under democracy, the government will be more accountable to the people as of right. In addition, people can insist on transparency in government business and with this, leaders in government can no longer violate citizen’s fundamental rights with impunity. Indeed, successive

governments in Nigeria since independence have failed to expand the frontiers of freedom or liberty and respect for human and individual rights, which are the core values of democracy and clear indices of good governance. In the country’s 56 years of political independence, none of the two experimented models of democracy i.e. the Parliamentary system, and the Presidential system, have been able to internalize democratic culture and good governance. There are critical challenges militating against the enthronement of democracy and good governance in Nigeria, which demand attention. This, then, underscores the concern of this paper. In simple terms, the objective of the paper is to identify and discuss the challenges to democracy and good governance in the country and proffer suggestions for a better democratic Nigeria.

 

 

 

1.2       BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

 

For centuries or even millennia, good governance has been a pursuit of humankind. What makes good governance? This question has been testing the human wisdom and endeavor, and it will continue to do so as long as governments exist. Each age and culture has its own criteria of good governance, but at the core, our understanding of good governance never changed greatly.

Good governance moves humans beyond the unintelligent, nasty and brutish state of nature towards a world of peace, security, prosperity, and justice.

The key to such a world, many argue, is institutions. Institutions, formal or informal, play a crucial role in determining how power is shared and exercised (Bueno de Mesquita et al. 2003, Jackman and Miller 2004). It is generally believed that democracy is essentially good governance. Due to democratic elections, leaders are held accountable to citizens at large rather than a small group of elite (Dahl 1971, 1989, O’Donnell 1996, Adsera, Boix, and Payne 2003, Bueno de Mesquita et al. 2003). Democratic leaders can enforce their decisions with relative ease because their rule is based on popular consensus (Buchanan 2002).

Democratic governments, especially consolidated ones, tend to be less corrupt (Sung 2004). Democracies protect freedom of expression, a backbone of marketplace of ideas and a source of innovations of all sorts (Mill, 1999). Possibly owing to the close connection between democracy and good governance, the existing literature gravitates towards democratic governance. Scholars have gained quite some insights into how specific forms of democracy affects governance quality (Lijphart 2012, Gerring and Thacker 2008, Lardeyret 1991, Linz 1990). Others contend that the working of democratic institutions requires certain cultures, but still, it is democratic culture that concerns them. This can be seen in the two classic titles in the field of political culture: The Civic Culture (Almond and Verba 1963), and Making Democracy Work (Putnam 1993). International donors such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Foundation (IMF), and the United States, attach strings of good governance to recipient countries, and their version of good governance bears a strong democratic flavor (Nanda 2006, Alesina and Weder 1999). In the discipline of public administration, a popular topic is how the New Public Management (NPM) challenges the classical democratic principles, as more non-elected actors are involved in the governing process (Pierre 2009, Kersbergen and Waarden 2004).

 

Good governance is in actuality a function of good behavioral values of the leaders that govern the territory, these behavioral attributes can be summed up as ethical values. The word “ethics” however, originated from the Greek word ethos, which means “character.” Ethics is a branch of philosophy concerned with the study of

principles and rules of human conduct. It is a science of human behavior encompassing the discovery of the appropriate manner of conducting human actions. The ultimate ethical questions are “what is the best possible way for us to live?” “How do we become good?” Ethics is not just about possessing knowledge about the best way to conduct your behavior; it is also about your acting in that way. This is expressed in the famous Socratic saying that: “To know the good is to do the good.” Thus, ethics involves knowledge and action, knowing the good way to behave and behaving in like manner.  Ethics does not only prescribe how to act, it also judges actions. Based on its description as “judge of human actions,” ethics is able to make distinction between good and bad people, good and bad behaviors as well as good and bad government.

 

 

1.3       STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Ideally, democratic governance entails the government of the people chosen by the people with its aim geared towards serving the interest of the people. It is therefore expected that the interest, welfare, peace and prosperity of the majority of the people would be promoted and safeguarded from the despotic tendencies of the rich and powerful minority. Following this, we can sum up that the dividends of democracy should be peace, economic prosperity and ultimately the evolution of the country’s civilization above the status quo because the governed have a say in how they are being ruled. But this is not so in the case of Nigeria, rather in fact high level of poverty, social unrest, social and infrastructural degradation, looting and embezzlement of public funds as well as terrorism and other related vices have infested the nation. The root cause of all these problems is the total compromise of the gross ethical values and moral standards that are not only associated with governance or professional organizations, but also the governed.

 

1.4       OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The major objective of the study is to probe into the ethical values in the Nigerian democracy, how its presence or absence has affected the country.

The specific objectives are to:

• Appraise the meaning of the concept of democracy.
• Examine the challenges of good democratic practice in Nigeria.
• Interrogate the ethical values and how they help preserve adhering institutions.
• Evaluate different democratic eras of Nigeria.
• Proffer solutions to the problems militating against the practice of good governance in Nigeria.

 

1.5                   RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• Is democracy being practiced to the fullness of its tenets in Nigeria?
• What are the factors militating against the success of democratic government in Nigeria?
• Are the political and regulatory institutions making positive impact in Nigeria?
• Is the practice of democracy in Nigeria actually intended to build an egalitarian society?

 

1.6                   SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study shall cover distinctively the general experiences and events which have taken place in Nigeria since independence up till the fourth republic looking into the ethical undertones as well as its challenges in application.

The study shall be limited only to the geography of Nigeria, in West Africa.

 

1,7                   SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research study will be of significance particularly to the following set of information users:

• To the students studying political science.
• To the general people in the sense that it will enlarge their awareness and increase the political consciousness of the Nigerian people.
• To the politicians so as to pin point the areas in which they can latch on in order to steer the nation towards greater heights.

 

1.8                   OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TERMS

• Democracy: A system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body.

 

• Election: Anelection is a political process

 

• Ethics: It is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct

 

• Franchise: It is the civil right to vote
• Independence: It is a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over the territory
• Institutions: It is the social structure in which people cooperate and which influences the behavior of people and the way they live. An institution has a purpose. Institutions are permanent, which means that they do not end when one person is gone. An institution has rules and can enforce rules of human behavior.
• Politics: It is the process of making decisions applying to all members of each group. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state.

 

 

1.9                   OUTLINE OF THE STUDY

The paper is structured into five sections. The first section is the introduction, which states the problem the paper sets out to discuss. The second section is the democratic governance, its features and limitations. The third section addresses ethical perspective in the Nigerian democracy. The fourth section looks into the fourth republic as well as rule of law, morality, separation of powers; while the fifth section deals with the conclusion, findings and recommendations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

 

Adsera, Boix,  and Payne 2003    Adsera, Alicia, Carles Boix, and Mark Payne. 2003. “Are you

being served? Political Accountability and Quality of Government.” Journal of  

         LawEconomics, andorganization 19 (2):445-490.

 

Alesina, Alberto, and Beatrice Weder. 1999. Do Corrupt Governments Receive Less Foreign

Aid? : National bureau of economic research.

 

Almond. Gabriel, A. Sidney, V. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political  Attitudes and

        Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, N.J.,: Princeton University Press.

 

Buchanan, Allen. 2002. “Political Legitimacy and Democracy.” Ethics 112 (4):689-719.

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce , Alastair Smith, Randolph Siverson, and James Morrow. 2003. The

        Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 

Dahl, Robert A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University

Press.

 

Dahl, Robert, A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Elaigwu, J. I. (2011), Topical Issues in Nigeria’s Political Development, Jos, AHA Publishing

House.

 

Gerring, John, and Strom C Thacker. 2008. A Centripetal Theory of Democratic Governance.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

Jackman, Robert W, and Ross Alan Miller. 2004. Before Norms: Institutions and Civic Culture.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press

 

Kersbergen, Kees van, and Frans van Waarden. 2004. “‘Governance’as a Bridge between

Disciplines: Cross-disciplinary Inspiration Regarding Shifts in Governance and Problems

of Governability, Accountability and Legitimacy.” European Journal of Political Research

        43 (2):143-171.

 

Lardeyret, Guy. 1991. “The Problem with PR.” Journal of Democracy 2 (3):30-35.

 

Lijphart, Arend. 2012. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and  Performance in thirty- 

        six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

Linz, Juan J. 1990. “The Perils of Presidentialism.” Journal of Democracy 1 (1):51-69.

Mill, John Stuart. 1999. On Liberty. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press.

Mohammed, H. (2008), “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Illusions of Good

Governance: The Experience of Nigeria’s Democratization Process, 1999-2006” in Iwora,

A.U. (ed), 7thAnnual Conference Proceedings, Benin on the theme: Nigeria Millennium

Development Goals, Lagos, Royal Bird Ventures.

 

Nanda, Ved P. 2006. “The “Good Governance” Concept Revisited.” The ANNALS  of the

        American academy of political and social science 603 (1):269-283.

 

O’Donnell, Guillermo A. 1996. “Illusions about Consolidation.” Journal of  Democracy 7 (2):34-

51.

 

Pierre, Jon. 2009. “Reinventing Governance, Reinventing Democracy?” Policy & Politics 37

(4):591-609.

 

Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern  Italy Princeton,

N.J.: Princeton University Press.

 

Sung, H-E. 2004. “Democracy and Political Corruption: A Cross-national Comparison.” Crime,

         Law and Social Change 41 (2):179-193.

 

Yio, B. W. (2012), “Democracy and Development in Nigeria: A Reflection on the Country’s

Democratic Experience up to 2011” in National Development Studies, No. 5.

 

₦5,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :